NationStates Jolt Archive

Talk about doing science backwards. You are doing the same right now. You have decided that because you dislike the source you will refuse to consider the data.
On the contrary, I dislike the source because of how he treats the data. He picks and chooses his data in order to make misleading claims.

I believe that is the title of Mr. Farrell's book [Why Men Earn More]... So far he's the only one to address it directly. Most others seem to focus on how much more. I've seen precious few that don't blame it on a mysterious 'glass ceiling' or 'conspiracy'. Mr. Farrell is one of the few to address more tangible possibilities.

That is not true at all. Social scientists approach the problem from a variety of perspectives. Among others, they have tried an experimental approach. For instance, it has been found that when job applicants are interviewed "blind" -- so that the interviewer cannot identify gender -- women are hired in greater proportions and at higher salaries. The experimental result supports the prejudicial theory. More importantly, they do not use distorted numbers to make their case.

To quote you; "That would be very interesting indeed!! If it were true... which it is not." You are now just making stuff up.

It is common, in good writing, to "introduce" one's conclusions before making an argument. I believe I backed up this claim in the paragraph that followed.

Mr. Farrell makes no such claim. The title of his book alone should be enough to indicate that.

Yes, it makes a very nice cover for his argument to disguise it as theory. However, the essence of what he is saying is that "there is no problem." "Men and women are paid equally for equal work." But this is not what the numbers show. Men make more, in general, regardless. Men do not, as his title suggests, simply "earn" more.

Ah, so you endorse 'selective sampling'. Throwing out the 'exceptions' as 'anomolous' data that contradicts the 'norm'.

No, now you are just making things up. Being a scientist, I know that all the available data must be analyzed to identify a trend. It is Dr. Farrell who selects the data he wants in order to prove a point. The idea, for a scientist, is not to "throw out" any data. The idea is that when all the data is taken into consideration, general trends appear. It is the trends that are statistically significant... Specific measurements, on specific industries, are beside the point (unless that is what you set out to study, and the phenomena about which you made predictions). Again, if Dr. Farrell had predicted, for some reason, that when data on statisticians were analyzed it would reveal that women make more than men, his conclusion would be scientific. However, with the way he has done it, not only will those highly paid female statisticians disagree with him, but so will their less well-paid male colleagues. It is simply not science.

Again, I think the title of the book indicates that those results are an exception and not the rule quite well. Do you really need me to remind you what it is? You are a scientist - refer to your notes. I'm sure you wrote it down somewhere...

To reiterate, his title is simply misleading. The scientist concludes that men do not earn more, they simply make more.

Umm, hmm. What age group represents the largest portion of the workforce. Over 65? Nope. Under 18? Nope. 40-64?

If they really represented the largest portion of the workforce, then Dr. Farrell would not need to zero-in on them to make his point. Statistically, the largest portion should outweigh the rest, right? So why does he not just say, "statistically, single college-educated women make more than similar men?" Simple: he can't. When the entire workforce is taken into account, the fact is that men make more than women.

Perhaps more importantly, people who have never married in the 40-64 age-group make up a tiny fraction of the overall workforce. He zeroes-in even more to find his exception to the rule.

On a different data set, a different group of women might make more than comparable men. Perhaps now it is high-schoolers, or never-marrieds with advanced degrees aged 27-45, or post-retirees. And Farrell could never predict which it would be, because these are fluctuations, not trends. When you show me a prediction he has made and tested, we can talk about his scientific work. But not before.

(Of course, it could also be that the women he picks out consistently make more than comparable men... we just don't know, because he has not tested the hypothesis. Even if it turns out to be true, however, this group remains a pitifully small fraction of the workforce. How many people have never been married by age 64?) EDIT: According to the Census Bureau, only about 3% of men and 2% of women have never been married by age 40. By age 65? Less than one-half of one percent each.

You are so wrong here I don't even know where to start. Data is data.

Exactly. If only Dr. Farrell thought so.

Your hypothesis prior to collecting it does not have any relevance to it.

Tell that to a scientist. To do science, one does not simply study survey data looking for correlations, then claim that one has found something. ("Oh, look!! It seems that blondes live longer than brunettes!!") When dealing with a large number of variables, meaningless correlations pop up all the time. In order to test whether or not a correlation one has found actually exists, one has to test it on new data... because it may just be a quirk of this particular population.

This is quantitative methods 101... first year, grad school (and sometimes earlier).

You didn't question the 'abberation' when it gave you the concluison that you sought.

That is because the scientists who conclude that men make more than women (regardless of other factors) include all the data in their analysis.

When someone else took a look at the same data and illustrated a conclusion that you disliked you suddenly decide the data is invalid??

You really need to reread what I wrote. The data is valid. Isolating it from the rest of the data is not.

Buried deep in this hypocritical rant is your admission that that I had correctly pointed out that you were wrong in your presumption that porn is the only industry that women earn more than men.

Actually, you have yet to provide valid scientific evidence of this. You only have meaningless, untested correlations to show me.

First off, he cannot convince me that there is no unfair wage gap between men and women in the United States. The evidence is simply overwhelming.

However, he could convince me that there are exceptions to the rule: that some occupations consistently pay women more.

So far, he has not done so.

He has failed to convince me because he can only point to narrow correlations discovered by "data-mining." That's what scientists call it when someone sifts through a data set to find correlations.

What these correlations amount to are untested hypotheses. Indeed, there is nothing wrong with data mining in the process of forming hypotheses. Based on what Farrell has found, for instance, he claims that female statisticians are paid more than male statisticians. Okay... maybe. But a correlation discovered in this way does not constitute scientific evidence. It could just be a "quirk" of this data set. Or it might be due to a hidden variable. He has a hypothesis... but now he has to test it.

At a minimum, to convince me he would have to show that he can predict the same correlation in other data sets. For instance, he should check to see if female statisticians make more than men over a number of years, rather than in a single year. It could be that in this particular year, professionals classified as "statisticians" had been heavily recruited by related, higher paying fields... and experienced men, who had been making more than comparable women, took the higher-paying jobs. They left behind a set of "statisticians" made up of well-paid women who could not get the higher-paying jobs because they are women making more than men with less seniority, experience, or qualifications (who for this reason could not compete with the men who left for better paying jobs).

He should also test across different operational definitions of "statistician." The data as analyzed may reflect a job classification out of which qualified men routinely advance, again leaving behind a set of women who accumulate experience, seniority, and raises... while men remain for only a few years before moving on to better jobs and higher salaries.

Or, again, it could just have been a quirky year.

The point is that you cannot know without testing the hypothesis. Warren Farrell does not test hypotheses. He just mines data for correlations that support his point of view.

This is not science. This is why scientific journals do not pay any attention to him. He writes for a popular audience, because he is not a scientist.

In the final analysis, scientific studies of the wage gap employ advanced multiple regression techniques across a wide range of variables, including occupation, age, experience, education, and so on. Taking all of these into account, the scientific consensus is that men get paid more than women for equal work.

Are we done?

Wow, you really are trying hard to change the subject. You've flipped positions so many times I'm getting dizzy. Would you last name be Kerry?

I've never seen someone work so hard to avoid a simple set of facts. You have completely forgotten even the context of the original point in your zeal to change the subject to something you can attack people with. You make a mockery of real scientists.

But hey, if you feel the only industry that women are able to out earn men is porno, then, well, that's your sad little opinion. It really isn't worth fighting if your regard for women is so low.

I tire of pointing out your ignorance and misconceptions. Rather than discuss it you dive deeper into your illusions grasping at dragging me along.

Sand does not go well with my hair. Maybe when I have rested I'll be up for more of this entertainment. For now - it is getting tiresome.

g'night.

Wow, you really are trying hard to change the subject. You've flipped positions so many times I'm getting dizzy.

Would you please point out to my sluggish wits the places at which I've either changed the subject or flipped my position? I'm afraid I can't see where I have strayed.

My positions are, and have been:

1. There is a consistent wage gap along gender lines. Women get paid significantly less than men, for equal work.

2. This wage gap is, by all reliable evidence, consistent across occupations.

You make a mockery of real scientists.

No, that would be your beloved Warren Farrell, who refuses to adhere to scientific methodology.

But hey, if you feel the only industry that women are able to out earn men is porno, then, well, that's your sad little opinion. It really isn't worth fighting if your regard for women is so low.

Now you are intentionally twisting my words.

First of all, I never said anything about what women are "able" to do. My argument is about how employers treat them unfairly. Many women make more money than a great many men, in a great many fields... and I am quite sure they have earned every bit of it (and probably more).

Indeed, I admit that there may be occupations out there in which women consistently make more than men. My mention of porn was a regrettable, ironic hyperbole intended to suggest my suspicion that if there are such fields, they are likely to be in areas that our sad little society considers "fit" for women.

I did ask for examples of fields in which women make more than men.

The examples you gave me were those provided by Warren Farrell, e.g. statisticians.

I have repeatedly debunked the kind of abused statistics that Farrell produces as evidence. Thus, you have yet to provide a reliable example of a field in which women make, in today's society, more than men.

Your opinion of women is low, if you agree with Farrell... who seems to think that women "earn" less than men because they make poor career choices. You seem to think that if women would take different jobs, the wage gap would disappear. This is not true.

Now you have stopped making arguments altogether... because, I take it, you have nothing left to offer.

Warren Farrell will no doubt make a lot of money writing controversial books that claim the established opinion of mainstream science is incorrect, by using statistical tricks and handwaving. This sort of bullshit has been, and likely always will be, popular among the uneducated masses.

He may as well be preaching "intelligent design."

TCT's hyper-protracted thread did not address the very specific question you asked, nor the answer I provided. His typical approach is to pile volumes of fallacy with a few sprinkles of fact into a mammoth post sprinkled liberally with arrogance and self-rightiousness. He then presumes the fact that nobody wants to address his topic-crowded and protracted rant somehow justifies it's validity. Rather than eat one bite at a time he tries to cram the whole turkey down your throat at once - hoping in that manner you don't notice how poorly it was prepared. TCT is the antonym of succinct. When he is capable of civilly discussing rather than sermonizing feature length essays I will be glad to address him - so long as he does so in a courteous way - which also seems to be beyond him.

"Men of few words are the best men" - Shakespear
"A truly wise person uses few words" -Proverbs 17:27
"If it takes a lot of words to say what you have in mind, give it more thought." - Dennis Roch
"The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do." - Thomas Jefferson

Meanwhile; The info I provided is factual and proven. I found a widely reported, distributed and reviewed report and you have done nothing but play dodgeball with it. You must - because apparently you are incapable of admitting that your claim has been proven wrong.

Jesus wept.

Here is what the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau have to say on wages by sex in a wide range of occupations.

(I apologize for images.)

http://tinypic.com/bdtea9.gif

http://tinypic.com/bdtg90.gif

Ah Bozzy, Bozzy, Bozzy....you've found another feminism thread to fill up with your personal attacks (which you will protest are not, even though the rest of us clearly see them for what they are) and regurgitated arguments you never quite have the time to actually back up with any facts. It sounds so familiar...almost like you've done this before....hmmm....could it be that you HAVE?

The infamous 'feminist coverup' hit and run thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=428594&page=1&pp=15)

Ah yes...the thread where you managed to ignore all the information presented to you that refuted your poorly backed-up premise...the thread where you claimed that you didn't have time to read through every page, so couldn't someone PLEASE sum up the counter-arguments for you, and you'd get back to them....the thread where you never actually bothered to 'get back to' the summations you requested...summations like this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9285748&postcount=360)...

So you bide your time, wait for another feminism thread so you can pounce, make the same arguments, with the same faulty 'proof', and then insult anyone who doesn't agree with you, all the while claiming that it is YOU under attack.

Yes. Very familiar indeed.

What!!! I'm all in favour of women taking over the world, and enslaving men (at least it seems like a good idea) but I'm not paying more taxes for it!!!

no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

B0zzy: After reviewing the thread in Moderation, I've come to conclude that you continuously bait people who disagree with you, as well as insult them for not believing in the same things that you did.

Specifically this post: TCT's hyper-protracted thread did not address the very specific question you asked, nor the answer I provided. His typical approach is to pile volumes of fallacy with a few sprinkles of fact into a mammoth post sprinkled liberally with arrogance and self-rightiousness. He then presumes the fact that nobody wants to address his topic-crowded and protracted rant somehow justifies it's validity. Rather than eat one bite at a time he tries to cram the whole turkey down your throat at once - hoping in that manner you don't notice how poorly it was prepared. TCT is the antonym of succinct. When he is capable of civilly discussing rather than sermonizing feature length essays I will be glad to address him - so long as he does so in a courteous way - which also seems to be beyond him.

"Men of few words are the best men" - Shakespear
"A truly wise person uses few words" -Proverbs 17:27
"If it takes a lot of words to say what you have in mind, give it more thought." - Dennis Roch
"The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do." - Thomas Jefferson

Meanwhile; The info I provided is factual and proven. I found a widely reported, distributed and reviewed report and you have done nothing but play dodgeball with it. You must - because apparently you are incapable of admitting that your claim has been proven wrong.

This entire post is you attacking The Cat-Tribe's personal beliefs, as well as their intelligence. I'm about sick of reading your responses to specific people across this forum, because you are constantly baiting them, for not having similar beliefs as yours, and for not meeting your 'standards' of debate. Either you start treating people with respect now, and knock it off with the 'veiled insults', or I'll slap an official week forum-ban as a punishment for your attitude towards others. This is absolutely not the way that you should be debating in this forum. Treating others with respect should be something that you should do more often. You've been in trouble before with this problem, and you didn't learn anything, so I'm hoping that this post somehow gets to your head.

Okay, fair enough. The point still remains, I think, that the existence of such groups, which sometimes are the most vocal (for evidence, see the ignorance displayed on this thread), is harmful to the movement as a whole. Nobody is "allowing" them except the governments that fail to enforce total equality.
You can encourage, but not enforce total equality. Unless you have a program in mind...?

My point is that it is harmful to the feminist movement to allow organisations to admit only female members, just as it is harmful to the civil right's movement to allow prganisations that refuse to admit white members. In both cases, the dictionary definitions show that the organisations are running contrary to the most basic principle of the movement (in this case, the civil rights movement being anti-racism). That's all I was trying to say, right from the start.



I have to admit that I am unable to prove the existance of the black policeman's association, or any organisation of a similar name, directly. The best I have as of right now, is this:

http://banking.senate.gov/97_07hrg/071797a/witness/rbnson.htm

It makes a reference to "the continued existence, since the late 1960s, of the Association of Black Policemen", as well as various other groups containing the word Black as a racial identifier in their title, such as the Congress of National Black Churches. If you don't find that to be a reputable source, there isn't a lot I can do.

The best actual evidence I have that the Association of Black Policemen do not admit white people is this

Sketchy, I know, but it's the best I have.

Further, you cannot deny that calling your organistaion the Association of Black Policemen is not conduicive to a racially harmonious atmosphere.

As for female-only groups that attempt to bring about gender equality, here's one. Not a particularly great example, but you and I both know that there are others. I'm just lazy.

http://www.umu.man.ac.uk/women/womens_group.shtml

C'mon. Your inability to find better evidence proves my point.

Just because a group has "Women" or "Black" in the name does not mean it excludes men or whites. As I stated earlier, I am a straight, white, male member of NOW and the NAACP.

The NAACP is not hypocritical or racist simply because the nearly 100-year-old group refers to the "Advancement of Colored People." The NAACP has always had white members, has always fought for equity for all and against all types of racism, and has always admitted members of any race.

I've already stated there are some isolated, small, exclusionary groups. Some are white or male only. You wish to ignore that and label all feminists and/or all civil rights groups as ineffective/hypocritical due to the possibility of groups that exclude white males.

Although I am generally against such a thing in principle, there are situations where it is justifiable for a group to be exclusionary. AnarchyeL has provided some examples.

Regardless, an isolated small group or classroom here or there that may exclude whites or males hardly compares to the systematic racism and sexism that still exists in our society.

You want to focus on the threat posed a mosquito in the room and not the several rampaging 800-pound gorillas.